Urmila Vs Akbar Ali

¶1

Page No.1

¶2

2025:CGHC:16513

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 638 of 2020

¶6

Urmila Wd/o Ashok Nishad Aged About 34 Years R/oBaramdaipara, Near Santoshi Mandir, Khamtarai, Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh,

¶7

Ku. Khushbu D/o Late Ashok Nishad Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Urmila. R/o Baramdaipara, Near Santoshi Mandir, Khamtarai, Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,Chhattisgarh

¶8

Shakun Wd/o Ramdhin Nishad Aged About 60 Years R/o Baramdaipara, Near Santoshi Mandir, Khamtarai, Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Appellant(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

Akbar Ali S/o Ishab Ali Through Mehrab Motors Pvt. Ltd., D-25, Jaganpath, C-Scheme Jaipur, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) Pin202033. (Driver of Truck No. R.J. 14/GJ/1093)

¶12

Mehrab Motors Pvt. Ltd. By Incharge Officer, Meherab Motors Pvt. Ltd., D-25, Jaganpath, C-Scheme Jaipur, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) Pin- 202033. (Owner Of Truck No. R.J. 14/GJ/1093)

¶13

Universal Sampo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Incharge Officer, Universal Sampo General Insurance Co. Ltd., In Front Of Rajkumar College, Raipur, Police Station Amanaka, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Truck No. R.J. 14/GJ/1093)

¶14

Page No.2

¶15

For Appellants : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 & 2: None. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board

¶17

08/04/2025

¶18

Heard on I.A. No.1, which is an application for condonation of delay of 83 days in filing this appeal.

¶19

There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1 & 2, though served.

¶20

On due consideration of submissions of counsel for respective parties and the reasons assigned in the application, it is allowed. Delay in preferring this appeal is hereby condoned.

¶21

The appeal is admitted for hearing.

¶22

With the consent of the parties, the case is heard finally.

¶23

Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal challenging the award dated 06.09.2019 passed by the learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District- Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.63/2018 whereby the Claims Tribunal allowed claim application of claimants in part and awarded compensation of Rs.9,66,000/- to claimants/appellants herein along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application, in a fatal accident case.

¶24

Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 03.10.2017 at about 12:45 p.m. when Ashok Nishad was resting on the roadside behind

¶25

Page No.3

¶26

Manav Motor in Bhanpuri, at that time truck bearing registration No.RJ14-GJ-1093 (henceforth ‘the offending vehicle’), driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1, ran over him resulting into his death on spot. Accident was reported to concerned police station based on which Crime No.471/2017 for commission of alleged offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against respondent No.1.

¶27

Claimants/appellants herein, who are wife and son of the deceased, filed an application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.19,90,000/- under various heads on the ground that on the date of accident, deceased was working as a Labourer, earning Rs.9,000/- per month and they were dependent on earning of deceased.

¶28

Non-applicant No.1 & 2 did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and therefore, they were proceeded exparte.

¶29

10.Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company filed its separate reply and denied averments made in claim application except that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was insured with it. Accident with the offending vehicle was denied. It was also denied that at the time of the accident Ashok Nishad was working in the factory and earning a monthly income of Rs. 9,000/-. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, truck driver did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive offending vehicle and even the offending vehicle was being driven without fitness and

¶30

Page No.4

¶31

permit and as such, there was violation of conditions of insurance policy and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

¶32

11.Upon appreciating the pleadings and evidence brought on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties, the Claims Tribunal arrived at conclusion that claimants failed to prove occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching and cogent evidence and therefore, fixed monthly income of deceased on notional basis; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by non-applicant No.1; there was no violation of any condition of insurance policy. The Claims Tribunal has allowed the application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.9,66,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. and fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

¶33

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased on notional basis, particularly when there was specific pleading and evidence of claimants that deceased was working in a factory and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. He further submits that the amount awarded for loss of consortium is on lower side. Hence, he prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably.

¶34

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposing submissions made by counsel for appellants, would submit that the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the

¶35

Page No.5

¶36

facts and circumstances of the case, which does not call for any interference. As the claimants failed to prove the nature of employment of deceased and income therefrom, the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income on notional basis.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶38

As regards the income of deceased, claimants have pleaded and stated in their evidence that at the time of accident, deceased was working in a factory as a Labourer and earning Rs.9000/- per month, but they have not produced any income certificate/salary slip nor examined the employer or any official of the factory where deceased was working, to prove the fact of employment and income of deceased. Under these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any mistake in assessing the income of deceased on notional basis. However, in cases where documentary evidence is not produced to prove income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal should determine income on the basis of wages prevailing in area, price index, cost of living or can take help of the wage rate notified under the Minimum Wages Act. In case at hand, the Claims Tribunal, on guess work assessed income of deceased to be Rs.5,000/- per month but did not resort to circulars/notifications issued by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 fixing wage rate for skilled, unskilled and high skilled workers and therefore, fixation of income of deceased at Rs.5000/- per month by learned Claims Tribunal is

¶39

Page No.6

¶40

not proper.

¶41

Date of accident is 3.10.2017. As per Schedule ‘B’ issued by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Raipur prescribing minimum wage for the unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled and high skilled workers for the period from 1.10.2017 to 31.3.2017, would show that minimum wage notified for a unskilled worker is Rs.8,320/- per month for ‘A’ grade city. Thus, considering the pleadings in claim application and statement of appellants that the deceased was working as Labourer and further considering minimum wage rate prevailing for unskilled worker on the date of accident in District Raipur, which is a ‘A’ grade city, I am of the view that income of deceased can be fixed at Rs.8,320/- per month.

¶42

Addition of future prospects to assessed income of deceased, standard deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased and multiplier is correctly applied by the Claims Tribunal and the same does not call for any interference. Compensation awarded under the head ‘funeral expenses’ is also found to be correct. However, the Claims Tribunal was not justified in awarding Rs.40,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15000/- for loss of consortium. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of N ational Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, has held that each legal representative of the victim of a road accident is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M agma General

¶43

Page No.7

¶44

Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 has categorized the loss of consortium into three categories i.e. spousal, parental and filial. Thus, the claimants-appellants being wife, daughter and mother of deceased, are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of spousal consortium and parental consortium respectively. It is ordered accordingly.

¶45

In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that the amounts under other conventional heads should be revisited on percentage basis in every three years and enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of every three years. In case at hand, accident is of the year 2017, so more than six years have elapsed. Hence, the appellants are entitled for 10% enhancement on the amount under other conventional heads. So, by enhancing the amount awarded under other conventional heads at the rate of 10%, the appellants are now entitled for a sum of Rs.16,500/- each (15000+10% increase after 3 years) towards loss of estate and funeral expenses i.e. total Rs.33,000/- under both the heads. Likewise, each appellant is entitled for Rs.44,000/- (40000 + 10% increase after 3 years) i.e. Rs.1,32,000/- for loss of consortium (spousal, parental and filial).

¶46

19.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants.

¶47

20.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.8,320/- per

¶48

Page No.8

¶49

month and since at the time of accident the deceased was 35 years old, therefore, in view of the law laid down in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) , the income of deceased is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.11,648/-(8320+3328). Thus, annual income of deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation comes to Rs.1,39,776/(11648). Out of this amount, one-third is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased and after deducting 1/3^rd , annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.93,184/(139776-46592). By applying multiplier of 16, as applied by Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.14,90,944/- (93184x16). Besides this, appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000/- each towards spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium being wife, daughter and mother of the deceased, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram (supra). They are also entitled for a sum of Rs.16500/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses i.e. Rs.33000/-. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.16,55,677/- (14,90,944 + 44000 + 44000 + 44000+ 16500 + 16500) . This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶50

21.Any amount already paid to claimants/appellants as

¶51

Page No.9

¶52

compensation shall be adjusted from total amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶53

22.In view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lakkamma vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797 , it is directed that the appellant will not be entitled for the interest on the additional amount of compensation for the delayed period, which is of 83 days.

¶54

23.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned

¶55

Digitally
SYED signed
ROSHAN by SYED
ZAMIR ROSHAN
ALI ZAMIR
ALI

¶56

award stands modified to the extent indicated above.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶59

Nisha

Urmila v. Akbar Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila v. Akbar Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Ghana Bai Yadav Vs Executive Director

Smt. Sarita Verma Vs Satish Kumar Chandrakar

Kunwar Das Jangde Vs Santosh Kumar Kaiwartya

Santosh Kumar Chouhan Vs Natwar Sharma

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Bihanu

Harish Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh